Opinion
Column

The debate over whether women should serve in combat roles in the U.S. military is over -- the Obama administration has decided equal opportunity (and responsibility) applies to all.

By 2016, it is intended that some 200,000 women will have combat roles in the U.S. military.

This decision has opened up another debate as to whether this is a good idea: Can women be inducted into combat units without lowering the physical standards demanded of combat troops?

For example, Delta Force and SEALs relish tough physical standards for recruits, and one wonders if these standards will be maintained for women?

The quick answer is "no," most women are not as strong as men and it seems inevitable that with more women entering the trade, physical standards will drop.

Maybe this is long overdue. Maybe elite soldiers don't require Rambo-like stamina and strength. But physical toughness has becomes something of a tradition that will not easily be surrendered.

The U.S. has lagged in getting women into combat roles. Since 1989, the Canadian military has been recruiting women in combat roles. While 12% of our military is comprised of women, only about 2% have made it to combat units.

There is no question that women can do just about everything male servicemen can do -- fly strike aircraft, command platoons, work in submarines. The only thing they can't match is physical strength, which tends to keep them out of elite combat roles.

In the Second World War, some 45,000 women were in the forces. About 70 of them died or were killed in that war. In Afghanistan, we had about 230 women soldiers. On May 17, 2006, Captain Nichola Goddard, awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, became the first female Canadian combat soldier killed there.

The U.S. is aiming at 15% of its 1.4 million military being women.

Since 1994, women have been banned from serving in ground units below the brigade level. That means, no front-line fighting. Even so, some 144 U.S. women soldiers were among the 6,500 U.S. forces killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the concerns about women in combat roles -- or married women in the army, in fact -- is what happens to family life? Especially if kids are involved and husband and wife are in the military. There's an attitude problem, too, that will inevitably be resolved.

Soldiers feel protective of women and it will take a little getting used to for U.S. soldiers to treat women soldiers as "one of the guys."

We hear a lot about Israeli women being in the front line, but usually it's men. Interestingly, Eritrea in its war for independence against Ethiopia had no choice but to use women as fighters. Necessity made it work.

I remember being in Eritrea and asking how it worked out for a culture that preferred its women in specific roles. The Eritreans found that when women accounted for 30% of fighting forces, relations normalized and there were few problems.

When the percentage of women was smaller, men were overprotective, there were sexual problems, jealousies and difficulties with discipline. But with greater numbers of women, men had no trouble obeying female officers.

And the women were every bit as competent in battle as men.

After all, Eritrea won its war with Ethiopia with no outside help.

As for the change in U.S. military policy, watch for books and movies exploiting the changes, pro and con. And wait for the U.S. to develop an Amazon battalion that will put the men to shame.